Truth Magazine

By James W Adams

“That which is hath been long ago; and that which is to be hath long ago been: and God seeketh again that which is passed away” (Eccl. 3:15). This verse of Scripture impresses upon us the fact that there is nothing absolutely new; nothing that exists in isolation. Human events constitute a chain; the present is linked to the past and the future is linked to the present. The Preacher (Solomon) particularly wishes for men to recognize this as being inseparably connected with God’s providential rulership of men and events. My use of this fact which he calls to our attention will be to demonstrate that present error in religion is rarely, if ever, new. It finds its roots in the past and its harvest of chaos in the future. Particularly is this true of the errors of Brother W. Carl Ketcherside relative to “fellowship and unity” among Christians.

In an article in Truth Magazine some months past, I stated that I could see little, if any, difference between Ketcherside’s theory concerning “fellowship and unity” and the old time-honored and time-worn denominational concept of “the invisible church.” In this article, I shall explore this fact in greater depth.

“The Invisible Church!’

Just what is “the invisible church” theory? Simply stated, it is this: (1) There are saved and unsaved people in all formally constituted religious bodies called, “Churches;” (2) the body of Christ-the universal (catholic) church of Christ-is essentially one and is made up of all truly redeemed persons (sincere, pious believers) in all Churches regardless of creed, organization, or practice; (3) these people, being in fellowship with Christ and quickened by the indwelling Spirit, are in fellowship with one another, hence they are united in the one body of Christ (Eph. 4:4) and, in such union, are an acceptable answer to the prayer of Jesus for the unity of His disciples (John 17:20, 21); (4) the membership of this body, being known only to God (2 Tim. 2:19), constitutes it an “invisible” body; (5) the unity and fellowship thus enjoyed is tangibly expressed in the recognition of the fact that there are saved persons in all Churches, in the manifestation of a spirit of love and concern for such persons, and in cooperation with them in all areas of mutual agreement and interest. The above are not direct quotations, but rather, are a summary of the theory in my own words. To corroborate my summary, attention is called to some direct quotations from scholars, past and present.

Let us note first a lengthy quotation from Marcus Dods, an eminently pious and scholarly theologian of the Scotch Presbyterian denomination (1834-1909):

“The world looks on and laughs while it sees the church divided against itself and wrangling over petty differences while it ought to be assailing vice, ungodliness, and ignorance. And yet schism is thought no sin; and that which the Reformers shuddered at and shrank from, that secession which they feared to make even from a Church so corrupt as that of Rome then was, every petty ecclesiastic now presumes to initiate.

Now that the Church is broken into pieces, perhaps the first step towards a restoration of true unity is to recognise that there may be real union without unity of external organization. In other words, it is quite possible that Churches which have individually a separate corporate existence-say the Presbyterian, Independent, and Episcopalian Churches–may be one in the New Testament sense. The human race is one; but this unity admits of numberless varieties and diversities in appearance, in colour, in language, and of endless subordinate divisions into races, tribes, and nations. So the Church may be truly one, one in the sense intended by our Lord, one in the unity of the Spirit and the bond ofpeace, though there continue to be various divisions and sects … so far as man can forsee, there is no possibility, not to say prospect, of the. Church of Christ becoming one vast visible organization. Oneness in that sense is prevented by the very same obstacles that hinder States and governments on earthfirom being merged into one great kingdom. But as amidst all diversities of government and customs it is the duty of States to remember and maintain their common brother*ood and abstain from tyranny, oppression, and war, so it is the duty of Churches, however separate in creed or form of government, to maintain and exhibit their unity. If the sects of the Church willfrankly and cordially recognise one another as parts of the same whole, if they will exhibit their relationship by combining in good works, by an interchange of ecclesiastical civilities, by aiding one another when aid is needed, this is, I conceive, real union. Certainly Churches which see it to be their duty to maintain a separate existence ought to be equally car~bful to maintain real unity with all other Churches.

AAgain, it is to be borne in mind that there may be real union without unity in creed. As Churches may be truly one though, for the sake of convenience or of some conscientious scruple, they maintain a separate existence, so the unity required in the New Testament is not uniformity of belief in respect to all articles offaith.

“But the question remains, What truths are to be made terms of communion? Is schism or secession ever justifiable on the ground that error is taught in the Church?

“This is a question most difficult to answer. The Church of Christ is formed of those who are trusting to Him as the power of God unto salvation. He is in communion with all who trust in Him, whether their knowledge be great or small; and we cannot refuse to communicate with those with whom He is in communion. And it may very reasonably be questioned whether any part of the Church has a right to identify herself with a creed which past experience proves that the whole Church will never adopt, and which therefore necessarily makes her schismatic and sectarian. As manifestoes or didactic summaries of truth, confessions of faith may be very useful. Systematic knowledge is at all times desirable; ‘and as a backbone to which all the knowledge we acquire may be attached a catechism! or confession of faith is part of the necessary equipment of a Church. But no doctrinal error which does not subvert personal faith in Christ should be allowed to separate Churches. Theology must not be made more than Christianity. We cannot pay too much attention to doctrine or too earnestly contend for the faith; we cannot too anxiously seek to have and to disseminate clear views of truth: but if we make our clear views a reason for quarreling with other Christians and a bar to our fellowship with them, we forget that Christ is more than doctrine and charity better than knowledge.

A . . .It is monstrous that those who are vitally united to bound up with Methodism or Lutheranism or the Nor-one Person and quickened by one Spirit should in no way recognize their unity. ” (EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE; COMMENTARY ON FIRST CORINTHIANS; pp. 37-42.)

No one who has read after Brother Ketcherside with an unbiased mind and honest heart can fail to recognize the striking parallel between the concepts of Dods and the concepts of Ketcherside relative to unity and fellowship. The only significant difference I see is that Dods is more logical and consistent. Dods makes consistent application of the logical consequences of his point of view whereas Ketcherside makes application of his theory only to a certain point. He will not commit himself unequivocally beyond the point of an immersed believer in recognizing a state of fellowship and the practice of unity. He will recognize only such persons (i.e. immersed believers) as being Christians–in communion with Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit. Mr. Dods uniformly recognizes as Christians all who believe in and trust Christ for salvation, whether immersed or not.

However, fairness demands that I note the fact of a troubled spirit on Ketcherside’s part with reference to the “pious unimmersed.” He constantly refers to such persons as his “brethren in prospect” and avers that “he loves them”as though this were the issue. It is my candid judgement, based on what I conceive to be adequate evidence, that, in his heart, Ketcherside has already accepted the pious unimmersed but hesitates openly to avow it. Why he hesitates, I cannot know certainly. It is a reasonable assumption that he may realize that those he seeks to influence are not yet ready to go this far, although some under his influence have done so, hence for him so to avow would prejudice the success of his efforts. His “five rules of subversion” treated by me in a previous article would suggest that he is capable of such. Our revolutionary age has bred a strange species of ethics (much of it borrowed from Communism) even in religion. However, I do not charge Ketcherside in this regard; I only ask, Why?

That Ketcherside is not alone in advocating revolutionary ethics to achieve unity, is well known to all who have kept abreast of the ecumenical movement. A striking example of this are suggestions made by Dr. Martin E. Marty, at that time associate editor of the Christian Century and associate professor of history at the University.of Chicago. In his book, Church Unity and Church Mission (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), he says:

“At present there is little prospect that a large number Of seminarians, young ministers, collegians, and youthful members of congregations will become directly involved in ecumenical organizations. Their role will be less in the formation of such organizations at their centers than in the reformation of such by the way people act and think where they themselves live and work. Many of these, if they daily and in every way choose to ‘break the rules and violate the disciplines and disdain the orthodoxies of their own families, will find themselves ‘between communities,’ not at home in any embodiment of the Church.

“Such persons will find that their histories will be largely bound up with Methodism or Lutheranism or the Northeastern District or with First Baptist Church. We have been suggesting consistently that none of these institutions in isolation has a sufficiently deserving history to summon the best energies of Christians. What can be done? Negatively, to borrow Peter Berger’s phrase, they can engage in ‘sociological Machiavellianism’ -which, I am afraid, is the counsel of this chapter.

“Berger facetiously describes the tactic as one in which a person ‘acquires scruples and keeps on cheating.’ ‘Only he who understands the rules is in a position to cheat.’ . . .

“In a series of magazine articles written in 1960 I advocated something like Berger’s vision. Deliberately choosing dramatic terms to emphasize a point that could be lost in subtlety otherwise, I spoke of living in denominations and being faithful to their disciplines. But meanwhile, there must be ‘subversion,’ ‘infiltration,’ ‘encirclement= and other tactics which work toward the ultimate death and transfiguration of these forms. These tactics were subjected to some criticism: is there not in them a denial of Christian truth and discipline and a betrayal of ethics in an open-faced advocacy of this sort? This question is legitimate among those who equate the accidents of their denominational history with the whole of the Christian tradition. To those who make a distinction, the tactic appears in a different light entirely. ” (CHURCH UNITY AND CHURCH MISSION, pp. 124-1261.)

One would suppose, having read Ketcherside and reading the above, that Ketcherside has so steeped himself in the propoganda of sectarian ecumenists, as it were by a process of osmosis, to have been infused both with their theology and their ethics. Such is simply the old doctrine of “the end justifying the means” in a new theological dress.

Fundamental to all of this reasoning is the concept of the “true church of Christ” consisting of the truly pious in all existing forms of so-called Christendom. Animated by such a concept, I any corporate body or form (now or ever existing) with its particular creed, organization, and practice must be conceived of as less than the church of God, hence is expendable in the search for fellowship and unity regardless of the ethics involved in the accomplishment of its demise.

This is why Brother Ketcherside suggests that young men imbued with his (Ketchersides’s) concepts not change religious parties but work subversively within those parties.

Further to establish our contention concerning Ketchersideism and “the invisible church theory,” let us note another quotation from a modern theological scholarone very popular both with Ketcherside and Leroy Garrett; namely, John R. W Stott. Mr. Stott is the Rector of All Souls Church, London, and serves as Chaplain to Her Majesty, the Queen of England. He is the author of numerous books and articles and is generally accepted as a representative scholar of our time. Mr. Stott says:

“At last the Christ came. Jesus of Nazareth announced the arrival,of the long-awaited kingdom. . . God’s people would no longer be a race apart, but a society whose members were drawn from every nation, kindred, and tongue. Go … the risen Lord commanded His followers, ‘and make disciples of all nations . . . ‘(Mt. 28:19). The sum total of these disciples He called ‘my church’ (Mt. 16.-18).

“So God’s pledge to Abraham, repeated several times to him and renewed to his sons, is being fulfilled in the growth of the world-wide Church today. ‘If you are Christ’s,’ wrote St. Paul, ‘then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise’ (Gal. 3.-29).

“One of the most striking pictures which the apostle uses to, convey the unity of believers in Christ is that of the human body. The Church, he says, is the body, of Christ. Every Christian is a member or organ of the body, while, Christ Himself is the Head, controlling the body’s activities. Not every organ has the same function, but each is necessary for the maximum health and usefulness of the body. Moreover, the whole body is animated by a common life. This is the Holy Spirit. It is His presence which makes the. body one. The Church owes its coherent unity to Him. ‘There is one body and one Spirit, emphasizes St. Paul (Eph. 4:4). Even the outward, organizational divisions of the Church do not destroy its inward and spiritual unity which, is indissoluble. This is ‘the unity of the Spirit’or ‘the fellowship of the Spirit’ (Eph. 4:3; Phil. 2:1 and 2 Cor. 13.14). It is our common share in Him which makes us deeply and permanently one. (For a striking parallel to this reasoning, see the unpublished manuscript of Edward Fudge’s thesis for his Master’s Degree from Abilene Christian College, Abilene Christian College Library, Abilene, Texas. I have read it! JWA)

“This spiritual unity, created by the One Spirit, has sometimes been termed ‘the invisible Church’. Its membership is unseen. It is the community of all true believers, or, in the words of the Book of Common Prayer, ‘the blessed company of all faithful people’ Every real Christian belongs to it, whatever his racial, social or ecclesiastical background. If he belongs to Christ, then he belongs to this church.” BASIC CHRISTIANITY, pp. 106, 107)

Much of What Mr. Stott says is true and not at all objectionable if by “Church” were meant only the saved relationship and by “organizational divisions of the Church” were meant simply congregations of like faith and order. Unfortunately, as the reader can see, Mr. Stott meant more than this. His view and that of Brother Ketcherside are almost identical except for the fact that Mr. Stott would not, as does Ketcherside, limit Christians to the category of baptized believers, or to put it more accurately in nontransliterated. terminology, immersed believers. Mr. Stott, like Dr. Dods, is more logical and consistent than Ketcherside in accepting the total consequences of his concepts in practical application.

Conclusion

Dr. Martin E. Marty’s thesis in his book, Church Unity and Church Mission, is that there is sufficient unity for “Church Mission.” It is his contention that the unity which exists in Christ among the truly pious in all existing forms of the so-called “Church” is sufficient for tangible, concrete, unified action in areas of common interest and agreement among the divided sects of Christendom. This unified action, he calls, “Mission.” He suggests that “Mission” can be a reality without a corporate organization if all competition is decried and desisted from and if all will “support and accept each other in carrying on together their mission of serving and saving through word and work in the world” (Op. Cit. p. 27).

Brother Ketcherside believes immersed believers are in fellowship with Christ, hence in fellowship with one another.

He insists that despite membership in different corporate institutions, such believers should recognize one another as brethren, And despite differences in matters relating to work, worship, and belief should work together in all matters of mutual interest and agreement. I repeat, the only difference between Brother Ketcherside and “the invisible church@ theorists is that of degree and not of kind.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, p. 6-8
June 20, 1974

By Cecil Willis

Arrangements have been made for Brother Jesse G. Jenkins of Denton, Texas and me to be participants in a four-night Bible discussion September 23, 24, 26, 27 in the Houston, Texas area. The subject which we will be discussing will be what is commonly referred to as the “College Question,” but which in this instance more precisely will pertain to whether it is right for individual Christians to form organizations like Florida College in which the Bible is taught as a regular part of the curriculum. As I understand the matter, Brother Jenkins’ objection or objections will pertain only to the “Bible Department” of Florida College. The precise points at issue will be more clearly defined when I quote the propositions below, upon which we have agreed, and to which we have affixed our names.

Periodically, over the years, the question of whether it is right for colleges, like Florida College which teaches the Bible, have the right to exist. This article is intended to be merely an announcement of the particulars pertaining to the discussion, and to extend to brethren everywhere an invitation to attend this discussion.

A few months ago, Brother Ernest Finley wrote an article in the bulletin of the Oak Forest church in Houston which dealt with the right of the Bible to be taught in educational enterprises, such as Florida College located at Temple Terrace, Florida. Brother Finley’s article was entitled “Fuzzy Thinking.” Several brethren evidently objected to what he taught in that article. Thus a written discussion has resulted between Brother Glenn Burt who preaches for the church in Deer Park (a Houston suburb) and Brother Ernest Finley. That written discussion has been published in Bible Standard, a religious journal published from Austin, Texas by Brother Bob Craig, and edited by Brother Kent Ellis. Bible Standard is a very worthwhile periodical for you to receive, and if you do not already get it, let me suggest that you order it by writing Box 3284, Austin, Texas 78764. The subscription price is $3.00 per year.

There was also some interest in an oral discussion on the same subject to be conducted in the Houston area. The Oak Forest church, via Brother Ernest Finley, contacted me to see if I would be willing to engage in such an oral discussion with Brother Jesse Jenkins, with the discussion to be conducted somewhere in the Houston area. Though I was not our seeking any debate on that subject, I am not averse to discussing what I believe the Bible to teach, whether privately or publicly.

It was at first thought that the Red Bluff church in Pasadena, Texas would endorse Brother Jenkins for the discussion, and that Oak Forest would endorse me to speak in their behalf on the point at issue. However, the brethren at Red Bluff thought it best not to involve the congregation as such in such a discussion, and instead proposed that some individuals would see that a suitable place would be provided for the discussion. They emphasized that since neither Brother Jenkins nor I believed it to be right for a church to contribute to an organization like Florida College, they thought it best that the congregations be left out of the discussion entirely. This suggestion, conveyed to me by letter from Brother Curtis Torno, appeared to me to be a wise one. Thus I asked Oak Forest that, they release me from my agreement to represent them in such a discussion.

Brother Torno wrote that he thought the Deer Park High School auditorium could be rented for such a discussion. Since neither congregation will now be involved in the discussion, I therefore have sent my personal check to pay for one-half of the cost of renting either the Deer Park High School auditorium, or some other suitable meeting place which the brethren in the Houston area will select.

Brother Jenkins and I have only met one time, so far as either of us can remember. We did have one rather extended telephone discussion about the proposed debate. Everyone who has made any remark to me concerning Jesse Jenkins has commented that he would be completely fair in such a discussion, and I hope to conduct myself in a similar becoming manner. Brethren have spoken highly of Brother Jenkins’ debating ability. I do not know how many debates he has participated in, but I know he has conducted several debates. My debating experience is limited to four, but that fact should have no bearing on the debate.

One thing I liked particularly about my telephone conversation with Brother Jenkins. I explained to him that since neither of us knew the other very well, it might be very helpful and save a lot of unnecessary preparation if we each knew what the basic line of attack and defense would be. So I volunteered to tell him precisely upon what ground I intended to attempt to defend the teaching of the Bible in schools like Florida College. My thought was that if my argument was answerable merely because he knew what it was going to be beforehand, then it really was not a sound argument to begin with. Brother Jenkins just as readily told me what his basic objection would be to the Bible Department at Florida College.

Both Brother Jenkins and I have been very concerned about the effect of a debate on this subject in the Houston area. We both wanted no part in it, if the result would be a division among the brethren in that area. Of course, it already is well known that there are a considerable number of brethren who take opposing views on this issue in the Houston area. We both sought the counsel of several brethren in the Houston area whom we considered to be knowledgeable about the possible impact of such a discussion. The reaction was predominately in favor of such a discussion being held. In fact, only one brother expressed to me any apprehension regarding having it.

Brother Jenkins and I shall approach this discussion as good friends, though we do not know each other very well, and trust that we shall leave after the discussion even better friends, by virtue of having come to know each other better. I feel sure that the brethren where he preaches would permit me to preach there, if I should have occasion to be in that area; and I am confident that the brethren where I am a member would be glad to have him to speak to us. If I am not mistaken, Brother James R. Cope, President of Florida College, sometime in the month of May, 1974 was at the Denton meeting house to present a series of lessons on the home, which he has presented in nearly a hundred places from coast to coast. This, to me, evidences a good spirit about the matter.

Propositions

On Sept. 23rd and 24th, I will affirm: “It is scriptural for individual Christians to organize, operate, financially support by contributions, and to utilize liberal arts educational enterprises, in which the Bible is taught as a regular part of the curriculum (as is practiced by Florida College). ” On Thursday and Friday nights, Brother Jenkins will affirm: “It is unscriptural for brethren to form a collectivity that solicits contributions from individual Christians, and that employs and oversees men in the work of teaching the Bible (as is practiced by Florida College).”

Two additional points are a part of our discussion agreement: “(1) Neither disputant will write a review of the debate in either Truth Magazine or The Bible Standard; (2) If the moderators write respective reviews of the debate, no more than one such review by each moderator shall be printed in either Truth Magazine or The Bible Standard. If such reviews are printed in either Truth Magazine or The Bible Standard, they shall also be printed in the other.”

Religious debate, when properly conducted, constitutes one of the finest ways to study a question. Ordinarily the principals of such a discussion come well prepared. They present their material succinctly and precisely. Those who attend are the only judges on earth who must ascertain which side is teaching the truth on the issue being debated. More than on nearly any other occasion, it seems to me to be imperative that those who intend to get the most out of such a discussion come prepared either with a tape recorder, or with a Bible, note pad, and writing instrument. Brother Jenkins and I hope to see you there!

Another Debate Possible

A few weeks ago Brother Bill Cavender, who preaches for the Imhoff Avenue church in Port Arthur, Texas, called me to ask if I would be willing to participate in a discussion with Brother Leroy Garrett. I orally agreed to do so, and have since written confirmation of my willingness to participate. Brother Garrett and I engaged in a rather lengthy telephone conversation about the possibility of such a discussion. Brother Garrett does not like some of the connotations that the word “debate” has, so he prefers to “dialogue.” I prefer that he “monologue” a while, and then let me “monologue” a while. It does not appear that this semantical issue will prevent the occurrence of the discussion. Brother Garrett is now supposed to be checking with the Proctor Street church, where he recently participated in a “Unity Forum,” to see if they will endorse him for such a discussion. The format finally agreed upon may be a little different than that which we usually have in a debate, but without doubt, there will be a head-on confrontation of ideas in the areas wherein we differ, particularly as these differences relate to the subject of fellowship.

Brother Garrett is a college professor, and thus the Semester break would be about the only time when he could arrange for a four night discussion. I think two nights are entirely too little time to devote to a topic of such proportions, and also personally am reluctant to schedule a Wednesday night session, for most of the churches have their Mid-Week services that night. So it is probable that this discussion will occur in January or February. A specific announcement will be made later.

I am reluctant to schedule the discussion with Brother Garrett much sooner, since I have given my word that I will meet Nathan Urshan, Radio Speaker of “Harvest Time,” in Indianapolis the early part of December. When I lived in Indianapolis in the early 1950s, Mr. Urshan’s program immediately preceded ours on radio station WISH. So actually he and I have already had a few debates! “Harvest Time” is heard weekly on 700 radio stations in 19 countries. Frankly, I am fearful Mr. Urshan will back out on his agreement to have the Indianapolis discussion in December. But he agreed to meet me, and Raymond Parnell (United Pentecostal preacher at Lafayette, Indiana) wrote me to that effect. Then I talked to Mr. Urshan by telephone, and he and I tried to work around two rather full schedules to arrange a mutually agreeable time. It seemed that early December would be most convenient for us both. Mr. Urshan suggested that their new 1200 seat auditorium would be much too small to accommodate the crowds which he expected to attend. So we discussed the renting of various larger facilities in Indianapolis, and agreed to share equally the rental cost.

For several weeks now, I have heard nothing from Mr. Urshan, though I have written him since our telephone call to try to finalize the debate arrangements. But having given my word of honor that I would meet him in December, I therefore am reluctant to plan to meet Brother Garrett until after this Indianapolis commitment has been fulfilled.

In the meantime, I am scheduled to work in gospel meetings at the following places, and with the debates injected, my schedule recently and for the remainder of 1974 looks like this:

Jamestown, Indiana (June 10-16)

Fremont, Ohio (June 24-30

Fairbanks, Alaska (July 28-Aug. 2)

Anchorage Alaska (Aug. 4-11)

Waipahu, Hawaii (Aug. 14-21)

Bradley, Illinois (Sept. 8-13)

Jenkins Debate (Sept. 23, 24, 26, 27)

Brown Street, Akron, Ohio (Oct. 6-11)

Wooster, Ohio (Oct. 14-20)

Sciotoville, Ohio (Nov. 11-17)

Indianapolis Debate (early December)

 

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, p. 3-5
June 20, 1974

By Roy E. Cogdill

Perhaps none of us like to be called by an epithet even though it may be descriptive, in a technical sense, of our attitude or action. When the Christian Church people “went out from us” it was actually because “they were not of us.” The use of the term “digressive” was common in describing both their attitude and action. In turn, they used the term “non-progressive” to label those who opposed their digression. Some may have been that,. but to oppose “digression” did not make one “non-progressive.” In general it was an epithet intended to discredit and prejudice.

When the present division arose over the churches building and supporting human institutions, the sponsoring church plan of centralized control and oversight and the pooling of resources by the churches, the adjectives “liberal” and “anti” were commonly used to denote attitude and actions. Many times they were mis-used and became mis-representations. Some of us have been represented as “anti-missionary” and “anti-orphan homes” and even “anti-caring for orphan children.” This is all used to arouse prejudice and is a device of the devil. In general, however, the adjectives “liberal” and “conservative” were accurate descriptions of actual attitudes toward the authority of the Scriptures that led to a course of action that separated us and led”us apart. There should be no surprise when such a difference of attitudes toward the scriptures eventually precipitated division.

In the division over instrumental music and the missionary society it was and has continued to be recognized by historians that the cause of the separation was a difference in attitude toward the Word of God. Those who rejected these innovations did so because they believed that the New Testament scriptures constitute a complete and perfect pattern-of Christianity and the Lord’s Church. On the other hand the advocates of these innovations believed the Bible to be a book of principles rather than a book of rules and patterns. In rejecting “pattern authority” they claimed the right to exercise their personal liberty to apply the principles according to their own judgment. There may have been other factors that helped to prepare the way and to further the division when once it began, but fundamentally the chief and proximate cause of such division among God’s people was not social conditions, political differences, or economic status but a difference in attitude toward the Word of God.

This attitude that the Bible is a book of principles which we are at liberty to apply according to our own judgment or .,our own sanctified common sense” begets the concept that there is no positive, complete pattern of authority in New Testament scriptures. In turn, this attitude begets the commonly expressed idea that we do not have to find authority in the Bible for what we either. do or teach. Therefore, human judgment or expediency takes over and we cease to walk by faith. The Bible authorizes by teaching, and what the Bible does not authorize it does not teach. The ultimate conclusion of such thinking is a denial of the sufficiency of the scriptures and claims that we may do (among the churches of Christ) many things for which we neither have nor need any authority, How many times have you heard such an idea advanced by supposed Christians in the last 25 years? Today, from every quarter, we hear that there is no authority, divine in origin, except in a direct precept or command of the Lord. Necessary inference and apostolically approved examples do not bind and some of our young “intellectuals” whose teachings have been under fire, call such principles a “human system of interpretation.” It does not matter to them that throughout the history of what we call the “restoration movement” such principles have been the guide lines of brethren. It does not even matter to them that Jesus limited the teaching of the apostles to the churches, or those whom they baptized, to “whatsoever I have commanded you” and that an apostolically approved example had its roots in what the Lord himself commanded them to teach (Matt. 28:18-20). -Paul said concerning the Lord’s Supper, “I have received from the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” To disallow the force of apostolic example is to reject the authority of Christ and it is but a breath of difference from that to outright infidelity. ‘ Such an, attitude is a breeding ground for modernism, a hot bed for unbelief in the inspiration of the scriptures, disregard for and denial of divine authority in its completeness. We would be interested in learning from these self esteemed young scholars just how they think the Bible teaches anything.

We have seen it coming. Those who are aware of what has happened know that it has arrived and churches who call themselves “churches of Christ” are evidencing in what they do and say that these things are a reality in the churches of today. Many of those who are directly responsible for such modernism and infidelity are running around with their shirt-tails out shouting “fire” and they do not have sense enough or the honesty of heart to know who set it.

Many of our “intellectuals” are rapidly moving in the direction of not only repudiating New Testament authority but also toward denial of the divine origin of the scriptures in both word and teaching. This has always been the pattern of apostasy,. Neo-orthodoxy, in the theological world, says, “Oh! we believe the Bible to be the word of God, but we are not willing to recognize it as our -pattern of faith and practice, we must hear the ‘voices’ from within’ and determine for ourselves what is ‘truth and right.” Their religion and impetus to believe and act and be is more subjective, (from within) than objective (from without) – an “I think, I feel” sort of a guide rather than a “thus saith the Lord.”

With this growing sentiment among preachers, elders, and churches who call themselves Christian, there can be no path to follow but that ‘which leads to rebellion against authority and unbelief in the perfection and sufficiency of divine revelation.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:33, p. 2
June 20, 1974

By Denver Neimeier

During recent years we have seen many changes occur in our methods of travel, communication and those things which make up our daily activities. We are told that progress brings about such changes. While we might question whether some of the changes that have occurred are 14 progress,” it is granted that other changes have brought about those things that provide improvement.

However, I wonder if you are aware that even though changes have been made, some are a return to the way things were before later changes were made. For example, the first car I owned was purchased in 1941. The 1931 model car had a floor shift, one-piece windshield, and ventless windows. In the years that followed, auto manufacturers changed all of these things. The gear shift was moved to the steering post, a two-piece windshield replaced the older model, and vents were added to the front, side windows. However, ff you were to purchase a new car today, the salesman would point out that the “latest” thing is a floor shift, ventless windows, and a one-piece windshield. So, sometimes when things are changed, the change is a return to the way it was in the first place. Things do change – or do they?

The years have also brought changes in religious circles. The Roman Catholic Church within the past few years has had many changes; services are now conducted in English, there are no more meatless Fridays, etc. The so-called Protestant groups have also witnessed many changes which seek to improve their structure and activities. While these changes are not of personal interest since they bring about nothing that affect my service or worship of God, they are of interest in noting that at times there seems to be at least a small effort to return to the original. Things do change – or do they?

Even among God’s people, many things are different now from what they were even a few years ago. Preachers can no longer preach in places where they used to be welcome, even though they are preaching the same message now as then. Members of the Body of Christ who used to worship under the same roof, sit on the same seat, and even used the same song book to sing from, or the same Bible to study from, no longer do so. Those who used to work shoulder to shoulder for the growth of God’s kingdom now are working against each other. No longer can one declare himself to be a member of the Lord’s church and be welcomed by others who make the same declaration. Now there must first be the determining of what one is for and against before he can be fellowshipped. Things do change – or do they?

We are told that the changes that have been made among members of the Body of Christ in their work, worship, organization, etc. are those things which help to present a better image to the people of the world and which changes help us to reach more people to influence them in order to bring more to God. Things do change – or do they?

As these things have developed, there have been those who have accepted the changes ~and others who have rejected them, thus creating the division that already has been mentioned and, from all indications, which will get worse. Discussions, arguments, sermons, lectures, debates, bulletins, tracts, classes, and other efforts have been used to justify the need, or lack of it, for such changes. Many have read the teachings and writings of those who labored before us to find out how those of bygone years stood on these issues. And, I am sorry to say, some seem to think that because some well-known preacher, writer or elder of that era thought this or that, this constitutes sufficient proof to determine whether we accept or refuse a practice or action today. While at other times, the fact that such a thing has been practiced by members of the Church for years is all the authority needed to justify these changes. Things do change – or do they?

Why is it that people do not do as they say others ought to do? Why is it that those who encourage others to just accept the truth will not accept it for themselves? Questions are asked concerning “make-believe” situations concerning people, as if such would interfere with the teaching of God’s word. This sounds very much like the type of reasoning that has been heard from those who oppose baptism in order to have salvation when they ask the question,” What about the man off by himself somewhere, who reads his Bible, learns the truth, has no one around to baptize him, and dies before he finds someone to assist him?” Situations just will not and do not change what the Truth teaches.

As we hear, read, and are told of the changes that have come about within the Church, questions begin to arise such as: Were Peter, Paul, James, John, and others in New Testament times able to “present a better image,” “bring more people to God,” “create interest” etc. without these things that so many say are needed today? Or, did they have them and just forgot to tell us about them? If they accomplished the work they were supposed to do for the cause of -Christ without such, why can we not also accomplish the task today without such? Or, did they only do a partial job, and since their time someone, somewhere has found what was lacking and has been given the information by God in order for the complete work to be accomplished today. We ask the question in reference to God’s will, Things do change – or do they? The Bible says no. What say ye?

I grant that many changes which affect our lives improve our daily activities. However, the changes that occur within the Lord’s Body today are such that have come from man and not from God? God’s instruction for man is the same today as it was in New Testament times. The changes that have occurred are here because man has changed in his attitude toward what God has said. Things do change – but God’s will does not.

Truth Magazine, XVIII:32, p. 13-14
June 13, 1974